discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: http://www.researchgate.net/publication/7409938
CITATIONS
DOWNLOADS
VIEWS
83
186
2 AUTHORS, INCLUDING:
Vladimir Matveev
Institute of Cytology, Russian Academy of S
15 PUBLICATIONS 34 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
ISSN 1165-158X
2005 Cell. Mol. Biol.
TM
DOI 10.1170/T688
TM
INTRODUCTION
At present, it is commonly accepted that the most
characteristic feature of the modern science is its marked
specialization. Even researchers studying similar cellular
structures for instance, channels live now in parallel
worlds: those who study Na-channels do not see too much
sense in communicating with those who study Cachannels, and even less with those who study channels for
organic molecules. Of course, expanding specialization is
not merely a sensation or individual observations. We see
everywhere objective evidence of degradation of sciences
into individual "earldoms" whose autonomous status is
constantly being enhanced. The most evident proof in
favor of this is a rise in the number of co-authors on
publication, reaching in some cases up to several hundred
names. Also the number of specialized journals and
conferences is steadily increasing. The mean length of
formulations of the essence of discoveries, for which
Nobel Prizes are awarded, increases, while the number of
"discoveries" decreases and their significance can only be
798
799
"SICK" SCIENCE
One can become convinced that there has been a seachange in modern science, which has acquired an
essentially different quality from what it had 50-60 years
ago, at the period of foundation of the membrane theory
and of its competitor, the AIH. With respect to fundamental
cell properties, it seems that nowadays the 1st and 4th
elements of the scientific method have stopped operating.
As a result of specialization, many researchers have left
such a level of understanding of cell physiology by
immersing themselves in the abyss of the endless diversity
of details. The scientists are occupied, for example, in
studying molecular or even submolecular structure of some
channel, meanwhile their knowledge of membrane theory,
of which these channels are components, remains at the
level of an undergraduate university course. With the
horizon as narrow as the lumen of the channel,
identification of problems becomes minimal. It is evident
that without the first step, the necessity of the fourth one
does not even appear. Meanwhile the choice between
competing theories is a much more difficult task than
merely recognition of the existence of the problem. Thus,
the scientific method keeps operating, but its remit or frame
for the individual becomes increasingly narrower, and
dwell at the feet of molecular detail with little or no
integration. In the grander theoretical scale of living
processes, scientific method has all but ceased. A few who
do extol new encompassing ideas generally find
themselves ignored because the army of modern day
scientists are too busy with their details to take notice, and
the new ideas are debated by too small of faction of the
scientific community to appeal to grant giving bodies, who
seldom give funds to pursue theoretical work in life
sciences. Some rectification, however, may be afoot, as
new institutes such as the Bauer Center at Harvard,
desperately try to reverse the tide, and meet the problem of
finding people who can think in more general terms that
800
CONCEPTUAL HALLUCINATIONS
The bearers of hypotheses and theories always were the
vanguards of science, its real creators; however, the sphere
of their competence is constantly narrowing at the epoch of
specialization. Narrow specialists also become limited
people. The generation of scientists with a large circle of
theoretical interests abandoned science long ago.
Nowadays, even Nobel Laureates are specialists of a
narrow profile. Similar specialists also are reviewers
determining standards of the modern scientific literature.
An important question arises: who at our time is able to
appreciate the completeness of the correspondence to facts
relating to the membrane theory that formed half a century
ago? Who can make a choice between the membrane
theory and the AIH, or any other competing theory?
The answer to all these questions is that nowadays there
is nobody to make such choice. For as long as several
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
Acknowledgment We thank Dr. Leonid Pevzner for his help throughout
the preparation of this article.
11.
REFERENCES
12.
1.
13.
801